Comment author:MrMind
10 October 2016 07:18:33AM
2 points
[-]
In the Sequence, Eliezer made a strong case for the realist interpretation of QM (neo-Everettian many worlds), based on decoherence and Occam's razor.
He then, in another point of the Sequence, tied that problem with interesting questions about anthropic probability (the infamous anthropic trilemma), and that cemented MWI as the preferred way to think about QM here.
On the other hand, I think we are still missing the big picture about quantum mechanics: ER = EPR, categorical quantum mechanics, QBism etc. all points us to interesting unexplored directions.
In the Sequence, Eliezer made a strong case for the realist interpretation of QM (neo-Everettian many worlds), based on decoherence and Occam's razor.
It's tendentious to call MWI the only realistic interpretation.
EY makes a case against CI, which in most circumstances would be a case against anti-realism. However his version of CI is actually OR, another realistic theory. So he never makes a case for realism against irrealism.
Comment author:MrMind
14 October 2016 09:11:09AM
*
0 points
[-]
As far as I know, neoEverett is the smallest realist interpretation: Eliezer argued not only against anti-realism, but also in favor of the smallest theory that falls out of the formalism.
But MWi looks huge compared to RQM: it reifies basis, which is much more naturally explained as a choice by an observer, ie a "map" feature.
There are a number of kinds and grades of non-realism. Objective collapse theories reify both state and collapse,
MWI refies state only and RQM refies neither. Nonethless, it is not a completely anti-realist theory.
Comment author:MrMind
17 October 2016 08:09:21AM
0 points
[-]
As far as I know, RQM is not even a complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the original paper by Rovelli, there are many holes left which I thought nobody has patched yet. If you know of an exposition that corrects those problems, I would gladly read it.
Comment author:MrMind
19 October 2016 03:35:09PM
0 points
[-]
You have to value elegance more than correctedness, though.
I'm not say that RQM is incorrect, but I am saying that until it's completed, nobody can tell if it's correct.
Also, nobody can guarantee that when completed it won't carry more weight than neoEverett.
I'm not putting g a 100%..sorry, 99,99999% weighting on RQM. But its very existence undermines EYs argument for MWI,because it suggests third alternatives to a number of alleged either/or dichotomies
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (32)
In the Sequence, Eliezer made a strong case for the realist interpretation of QM (neo-Everettian many worlds), based on decoherence and Occam's razor. He then, in another point of the Sequence, tied that problem with interesting questions about anthropic probability (the infamous anthropic trilemma), and that cemented MWI as the preferred way to think about QM here.
On the other hand, I think we are still missing the big picture about quantum mechanics: ER = EPR, categorical quantum mechanics, QBism etc. all points us to interesting unexplored directions.
It's tendentious to call MWI the only realistic interpretation.
EY makes a case against CI, which in most circumstances would be a case against anti-realism. However his version of CI is actually OR, another realistic theory. So he never makes a case for realism against irrealism.
As far as I know, neoEverett is the smallest realist interpretation: Eliezer argued not only against anti-realism, but also in favor of the smallest theory that falls out of the formalism.
But MWi looks huge compared to RQM: it reifies basis, which is much more naturally explained as a choice by an observer, ie a "map" feature.
There are a number of kinds and grades of non-realism. Objective collapse theories reify both state and collapse, MWI refies state only and RQM refies neither. Nonethless, it is not a completely anti-realist theory.
As far as I know, RQM is not even a complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the original paper by Rovelli, there are many holes left which I thought nobody has patched yet. If you know of an exposition that corrects those problems, I would gladly read it.
An incomplete interpretation that is in the right lines may be better than a complete one that is not.
You have to value elegance more than correctedness, though.
I'm not say that RQM is incorrect, but I am saying that until it's completed, nobody can tell if it's correct.
Also, nobody can guarantee that when completed it won't carry more weight than neoEverett.
I'm not putting g a 100%..sorry, 99,99999% weighting on RQM. But its very existence undermines EYs argument for MWI,because it suggests third alternatives to a number of alleged either/or dichotomies